4 ms·

The solution is to form cooperatively owned, democratically operated, companies.

by vincent-toups 7y ago

tomp 7y ago
How would that solve the freeloader problem?
- vincent-toups 7y ago
  Vote the freeloader off the island. A cooperative is not a charity, though it does have the freedom to be more charitable if that is what the employee/owners decided to do. And obviously, it operates in an external market place which places some pressure on it to operate efficiently. The primary difference of interest here is the way an employee owned cooperative is directed by people the employees (who know what is really going on in the company) and for their benefit, rather than for the benefit of disinterested shareholders.
  - vincent-toups 7y ago
    Why this model isn't more popular is really confusing to me. Technically trained people have the skills that make the world go round. We should be extorting people with capital through the nose for them and making sure that we are taken care of instead of treated like disposable cogs.
    - noobiemcfoob 7y ago
      I tried to start a tech co-op. Ours failed because of a lack of shared definitions on too many topics. What was 'work'. What was 'learning/training'. We could agree on goals, but intermediary steps towards those goals were all over the place. Without a clear provider of vision and decision, it crumbled. This part is true of any venture, but I think becomes even more critical in a co-op since the authority is necessarily shared.
      - vincent-toups 7y ago
        A cooperative can be democratically run but still have a powerful executive figure who is invested with the ability to determine these sorts of things. I think in broader terms, cooperatives are bound to be less efficient than an equivalent capitalist controlled venture, but that difference doesn't have to be a death sentence for the cooperative.
        noobiemcfoob 7y ago
        We did. Even in a hierarchy, an executive's primary role is to build consensus, but in a co-op you're contending with increased ego from the participants. In a hierarchy, not being the executive makes it easier to back down on an issue. In a co-op, part of your mind must see yourself as an owner. In a co-op, every active employee needs at least some degree of CEO-ness. And then you have too many CEOs in the boardroom. > that difference doesn't have to be a death sentence Despite my failed attempt at one, I completely agree. To me, the co-op must be the way forward. It's the only likely contender I've found that might bridge capitalism and socialism.
    - subhobroto 7y ago
      > Why this model isn't more popular is really confusing to me. Technically trained people have the skills that make the world go round If you are brilliant at engine design does not mean you are brilliant at selling cars. Selling cars make money. There is negative value in a bunch of engines lying around. As software engineers we design automation to make a business more efficient. To make money you need to run a business.
  - tomp 7y ago
    > Vote the freeloader off the island. Wow, great solution! Except that, of course, you're missing the problem. Firing the employee isn't the problem - I don't think it's relevant whether it's done democratically or if the CEO "dictates" it. The problem is, how to find freeloaders? In absence of objective metrics (which is what the parent raged against), it's an art! Or, it will come down to internal politics, ass-in-the-seat time, popularity contests, ... not that much better than in a non-cooperative company.
    - vincent-toups 7y ago
      In an employee owned company, the stakeholders are closer to the problem and more invested in the solution. Does that mean it won't fail sometimes? Of course not. No solution is perfect, but the incentives in an employee owned cooperative are significantly better than the incentives management in an ordinary company typically has.
      - noobiemcfoob 7y ago
        Except, in identifying the freeloader, being far less invested in the outcome (e.g. further from the problem) is a benefit as it provides some objectivity. Create a co-op group and convince them their survival is dependent on each other...I highly doubt a group beyond 5 will agree on who the freeloader might be.
  - rmah 7y ago
    This sort of system simply encourages the formation of feuding power blocs. And woe be to those who refuse to join one of those cliques. Finally, if you can be "voted off the island", are you really an owner? IMO, you are not.
    - vincent-toups 7y ago
      You are an owner, you're just not the owner.
- subhobroto 7y ago
  What freeloader problem? If you have a system where a freeloader can win, then you have a system that encourages freeloaders. There are other systems that make freeloading impossible. Are you aware of pair and mob programming? People want to be successful. No one likes to lose. Even a freeloader is expressing that behavior because they believe that is the best way to win. Pair and mob programming completely makes freeloading impossible. It also is true teamwork where everyone is literally on the same page. The reason why you have a system where a freeloader can win is management that believes pair or mob programming is a waste of time. This allows silos to build up, provokes and allows for dividing politics of who can know how something works or not and breaks team morale. You get the behavior you design for.
  - tomp 7y ago
    Freeloader problem is e.g. someone not paying for police because they rely on police existing anyways because others will pay for it. We prevent freeloader problem by requiring everyone to pay taxes. The equivalent at work is requiring ass-in-the-seat / face-time policies. I don’t see how pair programming can solve anything, people can still contribute zero (except their presence).
    - subhobroto 7y ago
      > people can still contribute zero (except their presence). That's not how pair programming works. Pair programming is not sitting and doing facebook while the other person churns out code. Infact, in pair programming, that is exactly what you cant do. Once you understand this, you intuitively understand why mob programming is so much more efficient.
      - chrshawkes 7y ago
        This is an amusing comment to me. Maybe I'm burned out come to think of it? Your comment screams lack of experience in the corporate world, at least based on my 10 years in it. I think most companies have no time to have 2 or more programmers working on the same thing even if it produces some decent, soon to be legacy code. The constant, this is the only way to do it from so called seniors in this industry is so so frustrating.

The solution is to form cooperatively owned, democratically operated, companies.

tomp 7y ago

How would that solve the freeloader problem?

vincent-toups 7y ago
Vote the freeloader off the island. A cooperative is not a charity, though it does have the freedom to be more charitable if that is what the employee/owners decided to do. And obviously, it operates in an external market place which places some pressure on it to operate efficiently. The primary difference of interest here is the way an employee owned cooperative is directed by people the employees (who know what is really going on in the company) and for their benefit, rather than for the benefit of disinterested shareholders.
- vincent-toups 7y ago
  Why this model isn't more popular is really confusing to me. Technically trained people have the skills that make the world go round. We should be extorting people with capital through the nose for them and making sure that we are taken care of instead of treated like disposable cogs.
  - noobiemcfoob 7y ago
    I tried to start a tech co-op. Ours failed because of a lack of shared definitions on too many topics. What was 'work'. What was 'learning/training'. We could agree on goals, but intermediary steps towards those goals were all over the place. Without a clear provider of vision and decision, it crumbled. This part is true of any venture, but I think becomes even more critical in a co-op since the authority is necessarily shared.
    - vincent-toups 7y ago
      A cooperative can be democratically run but still have a powerful executive figure who is invested with the ability to determine these sorts of things. I think in broader terms, cooperatives are bound to be less efficient than an equivalent capitalist controlled venture, but that difference doesn't have to be a death sentence for the cooperative.
      - noobiemcfoob 7y ago
        We did. Even in a hierarchy, an executive's primary role is to build consensus, but in a co-op you're contending with increased ego from the participants. In a hierarchy, not being the executive makes it easier to back down on an issue. In a co-op, part of your mind must see yourself as an owner. In a co-op, every active employee needs at least some degree of CEO-ness. And then you have too many CEOs in the boardroom. > that difference doesn't have to be a death sentence Despite my failed attempt at one, I completely agree. To me, the co-op must be the way forward. It's the only likely contender I've found that might bridge capitalism and socialism.
  - subhobroto 7y ago
    > Why this model isn't more popular is really confusing to me. Technically trained people have the skills that make the world go round If you are brilliant at engine design does not mean you are brilliant at selling cars. Selling cars make money. There is negative value in a bunch of engines lying around. As software engineers we design automation to make a business more efficient. To make money you need to run a business.
- tomp 7y ago
  > Vote the freeloader off the island. Wow, great solution! Except that, of course, you're missing the problem. Firing the employee isn't the problem - I don't think it's relevant whether it's done democratically or if the CEO "dictates" it. The problem is, how to find freeloaders? In absence of objective metrics (which is what the parent raged against), it's an art! Or, it will come down to internal politics, ass-in-the-seat time, popularity contests, ... not that much better than in a non-cooperative company.
  - vincent-toups 7y ago
    In an employee owned company, the stakeholders are closer to the problem and more invested in the solution. Does that mean it won't fail sometimes? Of course not. No solution is perfect, but the incentives in an employee owned cooperative are significantly better than the incentives management in an ordinary company typically has.
    - noobiemcfoob 7y ago
      Except, in identifying the freeloader, being far less invested in the outcome (e.g. further from the problem) is a benefit as it provides some objectivity. Create a co-op group and convince them their survival is dependent on each other...I highly doubt a group beyond 5 will agree on who the freeloader might be.
- rmah 7y ago
  This sort of system simply encourages the formation of feuding power blocs. And woe be to those who refuse to join one of those cliques. Finally, if you can be "voted off the island", are you really an owner? IMO, you are not.
  - vincent-toups 7y ago
    You are an owner, you're just not the owner.
subhobroto 7y ago
What freeloader problem? If you have a system where a freeloader can win, then you have a system that encourages freeloaders. There are other systems that make freeloading impossible. Are you aware of pair and mob programming? People want to be successful. No one likes to lose. Even a freeloader is expressing that behavior because they believe that is the best way to win. Pair and mob programming completely makes freeloading impossible. It also is true teamwork where everyone is literally on the same page. The reason why you have a system where a freeloader can win is management that believes pair or mob programming is a waste of time. This allows silos to build up, provokes and allows for dividing politics of who can know how something works or not and breaks team morale. You get the behavior you design for.
- tomp 7y ago
  Freeloader problem is e.g. someone not paying for police because they rely on police existing anyways because others will pay for it. We prevent freeloader problem by requiring everyone to pay taxes. The equivalent at work is requiring ass-in-the-seat / face-time policies. I don’t see how pair programming can solve anything, people can still contribute zero (except their presence).
  - subhobroto 7y ago
    > people can still contribute zero (except their presence). That's not how pair programming works. Pair programming is not sitting and doing facebook while the other person churns out code. Infact, in pair programming, that is exactly what you cant do. Once you understand this, you intuitively understand why mob programming is so much more efficient.
    - chrshawkes 7y ago
      This is an amusing comment to me. Maybe I'm burned out come to think of it? Your comment screams lack of experience in the corporate world, at least based on my 10 years in it. I think most companies have no time to have 2 or more programmers working on the same thing even if it produces some decent, soon to be legacy code. The constant, this is the only way to do it from so called seniors in this industry is so so frustrating.